netdev
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [bonding][patch] Change locking scheme

from [David S. Miller] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bonding][patch] Change locking scheme
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 06:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Cc: bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bonding-announce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304031357180.317-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304031357180.317-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx 
   From: shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx
   Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:38:37 +0300 (IDT)

   This change is based on last week's discussion regarding the fact that
   holding a lock_irqsave doesn't prevent softirqs from running which can
   cause deadlocks in certain situations.

BTW, current 2.5.x kernels will now spit out debugging messages when
this locking rule is violated (ie. local_bh_enable() is called
with processor interrupts disabled).
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  RE: [Bonding-devel] [patch] (2/8) Add 802.3ad support to bonding, Hen, Shmulik
Next by Date:  Re: [PATCH] linux/net.h: bye bye struct net_proto, David S. Miller
Previous by Thread:  [bonding][patch] Change locking scheme, shmulik . hen
Next by Thread:  RE: [bonding][patch] Change locking scheme, Hen, Shmulik
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]